Nero v. Rygus, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 989

Leslie Nero, John Duncombe, Zoran Stipcic and William Kay as Trustees of IAM Lodge 2281 Pension Plan, and Leslie Nero, John Duncombe, Zoran Stipcic, Gerard Royer, Jack Whiteford, Beverly Graham, and Sam Rezo, on behalf of themselves and all other persons who were members of IAM Lodge 2281 on September 30, 1975 and had not attained the age of 45 years at that date, but had been members of the IAM Labour-Management Pension Plan (Canada) for a continuous period of 10 years at that date or had been in the employ of Mack Trucks Canada Limited Oakville Assembly Plant for a continuous period of 10 years at that date or if not in the employ of Mack Trucks Canada Limited Oakville Assembly Plant for a continuous period of 10 years at that date the member has not ceased to be in the employ thereof prior to having completed 10 years of continuous service therein, and on behalf of all persons who were members of IAM Lodge 2281 on September 30, 1975 and had attained 45 years of age but had not been members of IAM Labour-Management Pension Plan (Canada) for a continuous period of 10 years at that date, or had not been in the service of Mack Trucks Canada Limited Oakville Assembly Plant for a continuous period of 10 years at that date and have not since ceased to be in the service of Mack Trucks Canada Limited Oakville Assembly Plant prior to having completed 10 years of continuous service therein

Appellants;

and

Mike Rygus, Lester F. Gettel Jr. and Sharon D. Elliot, Trustees of the IAM Labour-Management Pension Fund (Canada) Respondents.

File No.: 17547.

1986: June 16; 1986: June 26.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Pensions – Entitlement – Vesting – Contributions made by employer to multi-employer pension plan established by international union – New pension plan subsequently established for members of local union – Benefits under original plan not yet vested – Employees not entitled to deferred benefits under original plan.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1982), 1982 ONCA 2248, 140 D.L.R. (3d) 575, 40 O.R. (2d) 96, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Gray J. (1981), 124 D.L.R. (3d) 727, 33 O.R. (2d) 445. Appeal dismissed.

John Sopinka, Q.C., and Robert Rueter, for the appellants.

Raymond Koskie, Q.C., and Mark Zigler, for the respondents.

The following is the judgment delivered by

[1] The Court – Having examined the written submissions and heard the oral arguments of counsel, we are not persuaded that the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in its conclusion that the appeal from the judgment of Gray J. should be dismissed. As it notes, neither the federal Act [Pension Benefits Standards Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-8] and regulations, nor the provincial Act [The Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 342] and regulations, are designed to deal with what occurred in this case, and the respondents have complied with the requirements of the plan. We would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellants: Stikeman, Elliott, Robarts, Bowman, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondents: Koskie and Minsky, Toronto.